This article was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2015. The result of the discussion was further discussion needed. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please reach a consensus as to whether this page should also be merged to Olympic winners of the Stadion race, or if there is sufficient sourcing that a standalone article is appropriate. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Since nobody has thought it necessary to post a count before concluding the deletion request, I'll do it.
This means that the original deletion request was rejected. I want to thank everybody for this unanimous vote, because it attests that my contributions were valid.
Actually this appeared quite clear from the start as even the originator of the request, Pishcal, has never cast a vote for deletion. His vote is Merge, but keep some.
Thus remains the question why the deletion request was filed at all. I think that Pishcal had every right to question the utility of the pages created. He was also right trying to influence the further development of the project. There is an instrument on Wikipedia to do that. It is called Talk page.
However he decided on another instrument without ever contacting me and this gave a number of people, who had never taken any interest in the argument, the power to interfere. What followed has been called a "mess" by Dirtlawyer1 and I would rather agree with his definition.
More precisely, I'd tend to call the procedure an abuse, since it has been wielded to install a kind of preventive democratic control over how users have to submit their contributions to Wikipedia, which is certainly not the purpose of a deletion request.
According to the spirit of the compromise reached and to judge from the messages posted on the single talk pages, it is now in the competence of the admins to decide which articles on ancient athletes are permitted, how many and why. Thus everything has been burocraticized and as a consequence the whole area of research has been transformed into a minefield. So who would ever touch it again?
This approach hasn't worked in the past and it never will. Probably these power plays are also among the motives for the loss of so many valid editors whose enthusiasm must have vanished for a reason. As long as these stupid games have the better, I'm afraid the future looks bleak. Wikipedia can only survive as a free encyclopedia and today we have lost some of that freedom.
After many words, here is the body count of today's battle:
This user has stopped contributing to Wikipedia.
What I leave on the field is a rudimentary list of Olympic winners, thirty-five marginal articles with a merge tag and an incomplete calendar which is currently displayed on 776 pages and should have been expanded to 400 more.
Maybe the users wielding paragraphs and guidelines will take care of the completion of these projects, but from what I've seen I'm not very optimistic. Thanks everybody for watching. Good bye.-- Hyphantes ( talk) 23:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the Ancient Greek tag to just Greek. Because of problems with the preservation of the Eusebius text, we cannot be sure that the variant given is not a post-classical corruption and that the Eurybotas or Eurybotes variants weren't the more ancient forms. We cannot be sure if Eurybus is a reading derived from one of the Armenian translations or one of the Byzantine pericopes, because the published translations upon which we are relying don't specify this and don't show parallel source language texts next to the target language. (IF we can find one, that would be wonderful, but no one has presented one here yet). Dionysus of Halicarnassus calls the same person by a slightly different name that has a dental stem, and the fact that we have a roughly contemporaneous discus-thrower mentioned by Pausanias with a dental-stem version of the name who might or might not be Eurybus lends some weight to this interpretation, but it doesn't prove anything to a degree that seems to have reached the level of general consensus among specialist scholars. It's worth us mentioning these things and scholars have certainly discussed them, but because of WP:No Original Research we can't make assertions that they haven't made. Tagging Eurybus as "Ancient Greek" seems to privilege it over all the other readings that actually might be more ancient. I think it is better to use the el tag which marks it as just "Greek" and leave it at that for now.-- Jpbrenna ( talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2015. The result of the discussion was further discussion needed. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please reach a consensus as to whether this page should also be merged to Olympic winners of the Stadion race, or if there is sufficient sourcing that a standalone article is appropriate. Sam Walton ( talk) 09:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Since nobody has thought it necessary to post a count before concluding the deletion request, I'll do it.
This means that the original deletion request was rejected. I want to thank everybody for this unanimous vote, because it attests that my contributions were valid.
Actually this appeared quite clear from the start as even the originator of the request, Pishcal, has never cast a vote for deletion. His vote is Merge, but keep some.
Thus remains the question why the deletion request was filed at all. I think that Pishcal had every right to question the utility of the pages created. He was also right trying to influence the further development of the project. There is an instrument on Wikipedia to do that. It is called Talk page.
However he decided on another instrument without ever contacting me and this gave a number of people, who had never taken any interest in the argument, the power to interfere. What followed has been called a "mess" by Dirtlawyer1 and I would rather agree with his definition.
More precisely, I'd tend to call the procedure an abuse, since it has been wielded to install a kind of preventive democratic control over how users have to submit their contributions to Wikipedia, which is certainly not the purpose of a deletion request.
According to the spirit of the compromise reached and to judge from the messages posted on the single talk pages, it is now in the competence of the admins to decide which articles on ancient athletes are permitted, how many and why. Thus everything has been burocraticized and as a consequence the whole area of research has been transformed into a minefield. So who would ever touch it again?
This approach hasn't worked in the past and it never will. Probably these power plays are also among the motives for the loss of so many valid editors whose enthusiasm must have vanished for a reason. As long as these stupid games have the better, I'm afraid the future looks bleak. Wikipedia can only survive as a free encyclopedia and today we have lost some of that freedom.
After many words, here is the body count of today's battle:
This user has stopped contributing to Wikipedia.
What I leave on the field is a rudimentary list of Olympic winners, thirty-five marginal articles with a merge tag and an incomplete calendar which is currently displayed on 776 pages and should have been expanded to 400 more.
Maybe the users wielding paragraphs and guidelines will take care of the completion of these projects, but from what I've seen I'm not very optimistic. Thanks everybody for watching. Good bye.-- Hyphantes ( talk) 23:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the Ancient Greek tag to just Greek. Because of problems with the preservation of the Eusebius text, we cannot be sure that the variant given is not a post-classical corruption and that the Eurybotas or Eurybotes variants weren't the more ancient forms. We cannot be sure if Eurybus is a reading derived from one of the Armenian translations or one of the Byzantine pericopes, because the published translations upon which we are relying don't specify this and don't show parallel source language texts next to the target language. (IF we can find one, that would be wonderful, but no one has presented one here yet). Dionysus of Halicarnassus calls the same person by a slightly different name that has a dental stem, and the fact that we have a roughly contemporaneous discus-thrower mentioned by Pausanias with a dental-stem version of the name who might or might not be Eurybus lends some weight to this interpretation, but it doesn't prove anything to a degree that seems to have reached the level of general consensus among specialist scholars. It's worth us mentioning these things and scholars have certainly discussed them, but because of WP:No Original Research we can't make assertions that they haven't made. Tagging Eurybus as "Ancient Greek" seems to privilege it over all the other readings that actually might be more ancient. I think it is better to use the el tag which marks it as just "Greek" and leave it at that for now.-- Jpbrenna ( talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)